On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:14:49 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 04/17/2015 01:00 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:33:06 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 15/04/15 15:02, Peter Stuge wrote: > >>> the threshold to become a developer with write access to the > >>> gentoo repo is very high > >> LOL. No. It's way too low, given our review-less workflow in which any > >> dev can do essentially whatever they want. > > > > The only net results from strict review workflow (when each commit > > of each dev must be reviewed and approved by at least N devs) are > > tons of bikeshedding, real quality improvement is marginal, because > > people are working in different areas anyway. And if you will > > consider, that strict review will require N more times effort and > > spent time, actual quality of the tree will drop almost N times, > > because number of man hours spent on Gentoo is approximately > > constant with the same number of devs. > > If you have followed the recent discussions about gentoos organizational > structure, review workflow and overlay situation you would know that > there is a pretty simple solution for this problem.
I have followed them and I have seen no solution usable in real world. > Review workflow will not be random/global. Some gentoo projects already > have strict review workflow. You just have to map this properly to the > tree. If you do that improperly, then ofc it will be crap. Please point to exact projects and exact descriptions of workflow processes. As for now I see none globally usable. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpurKXd6qwux.pgp
Description: PGP signature
